The NHL's most recent CBA proposal didn't close the gap with the NHLPA as much as initially reported, according to union director Donald Fehr, but a player counteroffer is coming, possibly by Thursday.

After about 90 minutes of meetings between the sides in New York on Wednesday, Fehr told reporters that the league proposed what currently represents a 46 percent share of hockey-related revenue for players. That's up from the initial offer of 43 percent, which was presented on July 13, but down from the 57 percent the union currently receives.

According to multiple reports, the NHL proposal had three years at a fixed salary cap starting at about $58 million—a drop of about $12 million—before returning to a system where the cap is based on overall league revenues with a 50-50 split; and no rollbacks for current contracts.

That, at least according to Fehr, was not entirely accurate due to league-proposed changes to the definition of hockey-related revenue; the players might be getting 50 percent in the latest proposal, but it would come from a smaller pie.

"Our preference is to keep the same definition of (hockey-related revenue)," Fehr said.

Also, Fehr said, players would pay more in escrow in the early years of the deal, which would essentially function as a salary rollback.

The union, according to multiple reports, projects to pay 15-20 percent in escrow off the top of each paycheck, compared to about 8 percent in 2011-12. That money is held out to guarantee appropriate division of revenue, then paid back at a later date—assuming the league meets its projections.

If that doesn't happen, the league keeps whatever amount of escrow pulls them even.

"If the player doesn't get the dollar value of his contract because of a rollback in the contract, or whether he doesn't get an amount because there's escrow, he still doesn't get it. It amounts to the same thing," Fehr said.

The fact that rollback changes the entirety of a contract, while escrow fluctuates from year-to-year, is enough to make a difference, according to NHL commissioner Gary Bettman.

That said, sixteen teams, according to capgeek.com, are currently exceeding the proposed salary cap—and that would not be remedied by the escrow system.

Regardless, Fehr said, the union is working on a counterproposal that could be delivered in the next two days.

Bettman reiterated his belief that the owners' offer was "meaningful and significant," and reflects economic issues that have arisen since the last CBA, which was signed after a lockout wiped out the 2004-05 season.

"I hope it's clear that our intention is to make a deal we hope its fair," Bettman said, also stating that the owners' current proposal "moved more money" than the players' initial counteroffer.

The commissioner also confirmed that the hockey-related revenue share for players would be about 46 percent under the current definition, but that the term needed to be redefined to reflect economic realities—and, simply, that the league needs to pay players less.

"You need to consider what's fair, because we run the league at 43 percent of the revenues," he said, adding that the players have no "entitlement" to 57 percent.

The new proposal, according to Bettman, reduces the players' share of hockey-related revenue by 11.5 percent in Year 1, 8.5 percent in Year 2 and 5.5 percent in Year 3. The league believes that their offer will result in a rise in the players' share in Years 4-6.

Bettman again cited the NFL and NBA, two leagues that recently moved closer to a 50/50 revenue split after lockouts, as precedents. Fehr, throughout negotiations, has used MLB, which has kept labor peace since 1994 with no salary cap and, later on, significant revenue sharing, as the counter-example.

The current CBA expires Sept. 15; the league has said it will lock the players out if a new deal isn't reached by that date.

Two weeks ago, the players offered a deal that would delink salaries from league revenue for three seasons in favor of a fixed salary cap, which would fall at $69 million next season before increasing to $71 million and $75 million. The system would revert to 57 percent of revenues in the fourth year.